Yes. I belayed Zac on it, and attempted it myself . . .
It is a line that had been seen by numerous people before being cleaned up by Mikl, declared climbable, and then offered up to lot's of people as a 'competition' open project in 2010. It often came up as an option when deciding 'what to do' . . .
Without knowledge of Moniques recent activity, Zac went and had a ground-up shot last week, falling at the end of the hard climbing. He subsequently found a stash of staples further up the climb seemingly meant for the route. He contacted Mikl to see if he knew who had been on it recently. Further inquiries by Zac revealed that another party (Monique and Simon) had been further cleaning and top-roping the route, were claiming it to now be their project and were intent on further cleaning and placing a belay mid-pitch to avoid the full pitch gear requirement.
For a variety of reasons and after some consideration I decided to join Zac to enable him to have a second attempt at the route. He chose a rather extensive rack and went for it, eventually taking a large fall at the end of the hard climbing; and then lowering to the ground. After pulling the rope I had a shot or two, but fell trying to get established in the main crack. Zac got through the hard section on his next try and went to the top. I followed cleaning the pitch, but had to pull on some gear through the harder parts of the lower section. The upper section is definitely still grubby but is typical of that that style of Blueies climbing - yeah, you could spend another few hours 'cleaning' it out but it would make little difference to the actual climbing. I don't know for certain whether her cleaning made any difference to Zacs ascent but I am pretty sure the top part would not have been any harder or unclimbable if uncleaned.
I do consider Monique a friend - my actions were not motivated by any dislike or disrespect to her as a person. They were based upon the traditions of climbing of open trad projects - we approached it in as a good a form as we could (all things considered) hoping to succeed - I'm sorry but I can't apologise for Zac's success. He could just as easily have failed - there was not going to be any 'working' of the moves, top-rope rehearsal etc. We were simply there to see if he could climb the route and thereby have our say on how the route should be. I hope that Monique can appreciate some of these points, and I hope to be able to discuss with her sometime soon . . .

What's the widely accepted ethic here? If the climb in question was widely known as an open project and someone jumps on it and marks it as being attempted, does it then belong to them until they relinquish it/get tired of projecting it?

It would seem that Monique felt the climb was hers to project. In this instance who is mistaken?

There are no clear ethics hear....but even on sport routes ..if I see a line that i know someone is keen on bolting and having a go...I leave it and do something else....plenty of rock (and cracks) around....you have to question your own motives of why you need to do that climb right now?.....I do not think its an issue of ethics more of courtesy to your fellow climber.

Closed project trad lines are a grey area but I feel the Monique have right of way. You knew what you were doing was going to cause controversy but did it anyway...
A bit of respect would have been nice, another crack first ascent for zac may not have rated that highly in his list of achievements but it sounds like it was something special for Monique.

On 20/08/2012 rightarmbad wrote:>The personal challenge still exists.>It's only lessor in her own mind.

Then why the need for Zac to suddenly NEED to do it?..if it was an issue of how it was to be done....was he worried about fixed pro being used...even if that was the case its not like they couldn't have discussed it with Monqiue directly rather than through a proxy in mike...petty actions breed petty actions....its a chicken or the egg scenario IMHO.

Your right though it doesn't really matter...the world will still turn.

If it's a friend, why wouldn't you get in contact with them and suggest it should be done without an added bolted belay and talk about the fact you were keen to have a go? Instead, you went ahead and sent it in the style you prefer in order to send that message to Monique (and the "world"). That doesn't seem like something friends would do. Were you scared that she would ask you to stay off?

Would any of you not feel a bit insulted if a friend sent a line you were working - that they knew you were working - without bothering to talk to you beforehand?

It's certainly not the end of the world, but it's not the most gentlemanly approach either.

On 20/08/2012 rodw wrote:>Your asking a hypothetical that didn't happen so can't see how adding that>to this discussion is relevant?

Hypotheticals are particularly relevant from a learning perspective. For people like myself who are in their 'ethical' formative phase I reckon this is a pretty interesting situation. From what I've read a climb was cleaned and offered as an open project. After a lengthy period of time one person (we'll call her MF) expends considerable energy cleaning it up, working the moves and adds the commonly accepted 'project marker' as they intended to complete the climb in their preferred style: with bolts. Seemingly by coincidence, another interested party (we'll call them ZV & MM) of a different ethical mindset, trad good bolts bad, happen to decided they're ready for the challenge, disregard the 'project marker' pin and complete the climb in what they consider a better style: sans bolts. They then try to justify their perfidy by claiming a trad lead as ethically superior, or as MM says on Facebook, "... pure Aussie climbing ethics."

I dont know ZV or MM, but their effort comes off as disrespectful to MF and worst of all, scallywaggish.

P.S. As a learning opportunity for ethically challenged people such as myself it raises interesting points about the pros/cons of bolting climbs that can be lead on gear, but fails when the golden rule is applied; treat others the way you want to be treated.

On 20/08/2012 Miguel75 wrote:>On 20/08/2012 rodw wrote:>>Your asking a hypothetical that didn't happen so can't see how adding>that>>to this discussion is relevant?>>Hypotheticals are particularly relevant from a learning perspective. For>people like myself who are in their 'ethical' formative phase I reckon>this is a pretty interesting situation. From what I've read a climb was>cleaned and offered as an open project. After a lengthy period of time>one person (we'll call her MF) expends considerable energy cleaning it>up, working the moves and adds the commonly accepted 'project marker' as>they intended to complete the climb in their preferred style: with bolts.>Seemingly by coincidence, another interested party (we'll call them ZV>& MM) of a different ethical mindset, trad good bolts bad, happen to decided>they're ready for the challenge, disregard the 'project marker' pin and>complete the climb in what they consider a better style: sans bolts. They>then try to justify their perfidy by claiming a trad lead as ethically>superior, or as MM says on Facebook, "... pure Aussie climbing ethics.">>>I dont know ZV or MM, but their effort comes off as disrespectful to MF>and worst of all, scallywaggish.>>P.S. As a learning opportunity for ethically challenged people such as>myself it raises interesting points about the pros/cons of bolting climbs>that can be lead on gear, but fails when the golden rule is applied; treat>others the way you want to be treated.

Sorry Mike I think you've miss-interpreted the situation. MF and SC didn't intend to do the climb on bolts as you allude, they intended to add a belay station. If MF and SC intended to bolt a crack like that, yes everyone would be on the MM / ZV side. Your comment is as Rod stated, not relevant in this case. To make a belay station on a 60 m climb is reasonable (in the Australian context), bolting a crack is not.

On 20/08/2012 pecheur wrote:>Sorry Mike I think you've miss-interpreted the situation. MF and SC didn't>intend to do the climb on bolts as you allude, they intended to add a belay>station.....

Thanks Patrick. I originally just meant the bolted belay, though failed to correctly specify this once I reached fever pitch and threw in the whole "bolting lines that can be lead on gear" line... Now that my blood pressure has returned to normal I think I'll get back to the gardening;) or not...